Carl,

The idea of defining value (or price) as function of demand and supply (notice the correct order: first demand, then supply) is as scientific and tangible as it gets. What’s more feasible than establishing a dollar value for a good or service? I understand your proclivity to add ideology and metaphysics to the definition of value. In any case, I will not debate the fact that there is a marginal group of people that have “no means to make a demand”. Yet I will highlight the fact that they are (and let’s put it bluntly) irrelevant for an economic analysis.

Now, I am not surprised that you propose eliminating capital markets and enforcing labor restrictions and compulsions by collectivizing businesses. Yet, do you really think that these Soviet-style measures actually work? From Ultra-Maoist Cambodia to Tito’s relative tolerance for markets, controlled economies always lead to disastrous productivity, extremely high unemployment, hyperinflation and overall poverty. Sadly, controlled economies can linger for years in dictatorships with a populist and nationalistic agenda (such as Chavez’s Venezuela) or in extremely repressive totalitarian regimes (such as the Third Reich, the Taliban and Castro’s Cuba).

You stated that libertarians often fail to understand that markets are a three-way relationship: buyer, seller and cop. Since when do you hang out with anarcho-capitalists? Libertarianism or Classic Liberalism doesn’t propose the elimination of law enforcement or the rule law. The mere presence of aw enforcement guarantees the upholding of contracts binding consenting parties.

Last but not least, I am puzzled that you consider yourself a visionary when you propose obviously flawed and failed economic formulas.